Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine!

[zerinus]

Even if Sidney gave Joseph all his ideas, wouldn’t there be more of a Protestant structure to his church? Also it seems the the Mormon Church gradually changed, as it grew in size and JS (or SR or OC) received more “revelations”, but in any case, I don’t see how they would have been influence by Catholicism, which wasn’t a very entrenched religion in the United States at that time.

Logical and correct.

I don’t really know where the idea of Catholic purgatory comes from. Actually a lot of the afterlife stuff is strange in both religions. People go to purgatory immediately after death, to be purged of sins, but no one can get into heaven or hell until the resurrection of everyone who ever died before, at the Second Coming. Then is when we are really and finally, judged, as I understand it. I think Mormons believe this too. The whole thing is terribly confusing. But it seems like the LDS religion allows for a certain cleansing too, before final judgement.

I don’t know about Catholicism; but LDS ideas of afterlife are not all that obtuse. We believe that when people die they go to the spirit world where their condition is described as being happy or unhappy depending on how their lives have been. The virtuous will go to a place of happiness which the Book of Mormon calls “paradise”. It is the “heaven” of the spirit world, where the good spirits will go, and where they will be happy—while waiting for the resurrection. The wicked spirits go to a place where they will be unhappy, variously called “outer darkness” and “spirit prison”. In this state they both remain until the resurrection and final judgment.

The resurrection is not a one off event. There have been (and will be) several “periods” of resurrection. There was one general resurrection at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament confirms that. There will also be a general resurrection at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. And there will be one final resurrection at the end of the Millennium. There have also been individual resurrections of righteous prophets and Saints in between these times. The righteous will be resurrected before the unrighteous.

There are very few people who will go to hell permanently. Most will be redeemed in due course, after paying the penalty of their sins, and will be assigned a place in one of the three kingdoms of glory.

If any of that is not clear, let us know, and we will talk about it further.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Logical and correct.

I don’t know about Catholicism; but LDS ideas of afterlife are not all that obtuse. We believe that when people die they go to the spirit world where their condition is described as being happy or unhappy depending on how their lives have been. The virtuous will go to a place of happiness which the Book of Mormon calls “paradise”. It is the “heaven” of the spirit world, where the good spirits will go, and where they will be happy—while waiting for the resurrection. The wicked spirits go to a place where they will be unhappy, variously called “outer darkness” and “spirit prison”. In this state they both remain until the resurrection and final judgment.

The resurrection is not a one off event. There have been (and will be) several “periods” of resurrection. There was one general resurrection at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament confirms that. There will also be a general resurrection at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. And there will be one final resurrection at the end of the Millennium. There have also been individual resurrections of righteous prophets and Saints in between these times. The righteous will be resurrected before the unrighteous.

There are very few people who will go to hell permanently. Most will be redeemed in due course, after paying the penalty of their sins, and will be assigned a place in one of the three kingdoms of glory.

If any of that is not clear, let us know, and we will talk about it further.

Sounds clear to me. What never was clear to me was where people go when they die before they are resurrected. I thought that the dead fall into a kind of slumber of the soul and remain in this state until the Last Judgement. For Catholics, however, Purgatory remains as a possibility of purging oneself from evil before the Last Judgement.

Mormons seem to be more clear on where the dead will await their resurrections.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

There is a difference between reconciling doctrines (which this topic was NOT about) and being able to serve together in other ways. Catholics and Mormons have had a history of working together in many areas; charitable, political, moral and cultural issues.

It did not start out that way, but the point has been made and commented upon that while mormons and catholics can join together on some issues there is still a great divide between us theologically speaking.

dianaiad:

In fact, it is only HERE that I have found quite this level of complete intolerance toward Mormons. I am left with the impression that some of you would rather allow a child to starve than accept Mormon aid to feed him.

Really. Only here? You need to get around more. If you want to see real intolerance visit some fundamentalist websites. They will come right out and tell us both we’re going to Hell. (Another comment to my brother about this… “Hey, according to the fundamentalists you Mormons may be a bunch of heretics… But me, I’m living with the whore of Babylon, baby!”)

BTW - I meant no offense to anyone by the comment I shared. My brother and I laughed over it because we both recognize the truth of it. We remain close brothers and good friends to this day despite his decision to leave the Catholic faith. My comment was meant as an acknowledgement of an impasse that we both already recognized, and my restating it here was not intended as a slight towards you or any other LDS person regardless of their faith tradition.

Having discussed issues with you on several occasions now, It seems to me, dianaiad, that you are the one bringing some pretty harsh preconceptions about Catholics to this forum - i.e. we’re all so intolerant. Sure, you will find a few surly Catholics here who are less than charitable when they point out the problems they see with your religion. That’s a byproduct of the anonymity provided by the computer medium. And it’s true whether you’re on a Catholic forum, LDS forum or a fundamentalist forum.

Some people will always be quick to point fingers. Condemning an entire discussion forum by saying that ONLY HERE have you found this level of intolerance is not the proper response IMHO.

Peace,
Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Even if Sidney gave Joseph all his ideas, wouldn’t there be more of a Protestant structure to his church? Also it seems the the Mormon Church gradually changed, as it grew in size and JS (or SR or OC) received more “revelations”, but in any case, I don’t see how they would have been influence by Catholicism, which wasn’t a very entrenched religion in the United States at that time.

What I have noticed is that Mormonism has taken what Protestants don’t like about Catholicism, and created something new in those places. Protestants reject the doctrine of purgatory.

I don’t really know where the idea of Catholic purgatory comes from. Actually a lot of the afterlife stuff is strange in both religions. People go to purgatory immediately after death, to be purged of sins, but no one can get into heaven or hell until the resurrection of everyone who ever died before, at the Second Coming. Then is when we are really and finally, judged, as I understand it. I think Mormons believe this too. The whole thing is terribly confusing. But it seems like the LDS religion allows for a certain cleansing too, before final judgement.

CCC on purgatory:

** III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY **
**1030 **All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

**1031 **The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606**

****1032 **This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.609

---

Catholic teaching is that we are judged immediately, at death. If you are judged to be in hell, that is where your soul will be. If you are judged to be heaven, you will spend time (such as it may or may not be in purgatory) being purified, before entering into heaven.

Church teaching is that the second coming of Christ and the Last Judgment, will be when we will stand before Jesus “In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man’s relationship with God will be laid bare.”

What judgment was made at your death will not change. Jesus will separate the resurrected into two, those who live with Him forever, and those who die the death of eternal damnation (what Revelations calls the second death, ie, the death of the soul).

Lest people think this is harsh, you must remember that the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that Jesus is our Hope for Salvation. From the CCC:

"The message of the Last Judgment calls men to conversion while God is still giving them "the acceptable time, . . . the day of salvation."627 It inspires a holy fear of God and commits them to the justice of the Kingdom of God. It proclaims the “blessed hope” of the Lord’s return, when he will come “to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

None of what you have said here is true.

zerinus, you shouldn’t confuse what you believe with what the Mormon church teaches, as I think you understand quite clearly, they are two different things.

“In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may prepare themselves to leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.” (“Gospel Principles”)

 

[dianaiad]

I think that people would know they are dead, don’t you? Knowing you are dead, and someone comes around preaching one religion, don’t you think you would figure it out?

So they know they are dead…and they meet a whole bunch of people who are also dead…and they believe something very different.

Frankly, this is all purest speculation on my part, but it seems to me that if we take with us what we learned here, then we also do NOT take with us that which we do not learn here. In other words, our freedom of choice is still completely intact.

The atheists will be astounded, though.

 

[dianaiad]

It did not start out that way, but the point has been made and commented upon that while mormons and catholics can join together on some issues there is still a great divide between us theologically speaking.

Really. Only here? You need to get around more. If you want to see real intolerance visit some fundamentalist websites. They will come right out and tell us both we’re going to Hell. (Another comment to my brother about this… “Hey, according to the fundamentalists you Mormons may be a bunch of heretics… But me, I’m living with the whore of Babylon, baby!”)

BTW - I meant no offense to anyone by the comment I shared. My brother and I laughed over it because we both recognize the truth of it. We remain close brothers and good friends to this day despite his decision to leave the Catholic faith. My comment was meant as an acknowledgement of an impasse that we both already recognized, and my restating it here was not intended as a slight towards you or any other LDS person regardless of their faith tradition.

Having discussed issues with you on several occasions now, It seems to me, dianaiad, that you are the one bringing some pretty harsh preconceptions about Catholics to this forum - i.e. we’re all so intolerant. Sure, you will find a few surly Catholics here who are less than charitable when they point out the problems they see with your religion. That’s a byproduct of the anonymity provided by the computer medium. And it’s true whether you’re on a Catholic forum, LDS forum or a fundamentalist forum.

Some people will always be quick to point fingers. Condemning an entire discussion forum by saying that ONLY HERE have you found this level of intolerance is not the proper response IMHO.

Peace,
Robert

I left something out, and my leaving that out was a fault. I should have said that only here have I found this level of disdain from Catholics. Frankly, in ‘real life,’ I don’t get this level of antagonism from Catholics at all, nor do I find a whole lot of it on other forums–from Catholics.

I expect it from Protestant evangelicals. Of course, many of them are convinced that the fires of hell will fill the universe, save for one small island of bliss–and they are fine with that, as long as they have really good seats for the really hot show.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So they know they are dead…and they meet a whole bunch of people who are also dead…and they believe something very different.

Frankly, this is all purest speculation on my part, but it seems to me that if we take with us what we learned here, then we also do NOT take with us that which we do not learn here. In other words, our freedom of choice is still completely intact.

Does your speculations leave our ability to reason is intact as well?

Put it this way Diana, if a whole bunch of Catholics, who you never met in any way, show up at your house, and you have the mormon missionaries waiting there teach them, don’t you think it would be obvious to them that the house they have arrived at is Mormon?

What is this spirit prison of yours? Is it a place where a bunch of souls show up and mormon missionaries are waiting there to teach everyone? Don’t you think it would be obvious to every soul there that the belief of the place is mormon? Do you think people should believe it is a trick? That perhaps, the owner of the place where your soul lands after death, is teaching something false?

The atheists will be astounded, though.

I think it will be astounding to all of us.

 

[Zundrah]

One of us should attempt some humor, and you don’t seem to be all that successful at it.

But yes, the Catholic church is a cult in the same way that the CoJCoLDS is. We are both religions and worship deity. (shrug)

You still haven’t defined “cult,” you know, except for your rather circular version of "Mormon beliefs are the definition of ‘cult.’ "

Which isn’t helpful.

I have spoken to soooo many Mormons now, that having heard the same thing from them gets very boring after a while. I have spoken to many Mormon missionary’s and I have read the book of Mormon too.I will be serious with you now.

Here is my explanation of how and why the LDS church in my view is a blatant cult;
A guy (joseph Smith) ventures to many churches, gets excited about them but cannot decide which one to believe. He says that he is drawn to the protestant church but he can’t make his mind up. “So hey, why not start my own church (he says to him self…) where I will be a prophet and I will be remembered for centuries as a genuine prophet from God who came to restore Jesus’s covenant to the church that DIDN’T EVEN collapse anyway.”
So he starts his own church after chopping off an angels head. He pretend so translate from a golden book that by the way has never been discovered even though he apparently buried it on a hill.
The church starts running, and he says to the people “Oh, no what ever you do don’t put any crosses up!” So he has no crosses in his churches or temples…(sounds pretty weird to me since even an atheist will wear a cross…).
Then of course we have the fact that to be a Mormon member you most likely have to get married and will be excommunicated if you upset them (that’s very christian).
And lets not forget that Joseph Smith only tactic of getting people into his church is by saying that if you join you will become a God when you die…
If this doesn’t spell CULT to you then I don’t know what will…

P.S I am leaving a lot out because it would cover up too many pages and quite frankly I wouldn’t want to make the Catholics on this web site sick from all the heresy’s you guys teach at your “temples”.:stretcher:

 

[dianaiad]

I have spoken to soooo many Mormons now, that having heard the same thing from them gets very boring after a while. I have spoken to many Mormon missionary’s and I have read the book of Mormon too.I will be serious with you now.

That would be nice.

Here is my explanation of how and why the LDS church in my view is a blatant cult;
A guy (joseph Smith) ventures to many churches, gets excited about them but cannot decide which one to believe. He says that he is drawn to the protestant church but he can’t make his mind up. “So hey, why not start my own church (he says to him self…) where I will be a prophet and I will be remembered for centuries as a genuine prophet from God who came to restore Jesus’s covenant to the church that DIDN’T EVEN collapse anyway.”
So he starts his own church after chopping off an angels head. He pretend so translate from a golden book that by the way has never been discovered even though he apparently buried it on a hill.
The church starts running, and he says to the people “Oh, no what ever you do don’t put any crosses up!” So he has no crosses in his churches or temples…(sounds pretty weird to me since even an atheist will wear a cross…).
Then of course we have the fact that to be a Mormon member you most likely have to get married and will be excommunicated if you upset them (that’s very christian).

er…what? You have a problem with getting married?

And lets not forget that Joseph Smith only tactic of getting people into his church is by saying that if you join you will become a God when you die…
If this doesn’t spell CULT to you then I don’t know what will…

P.S I am leaving a lot out because it would cover up too many pages and quite frankly I wouldn’t want to make the Catholics on this web site sick from all the heresy’s you guys teach at your “temples”.:stretcher:

I guess you sent this post before you got to the part where you were going to be serious with me now.

 

[zerinus]

Sounds clear to me. What never was clear to me was where people go when they die before they are resurrected.

That question is very clearly answered in the Book of Mormon.

Alma 40:

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

I thought that the dead fall into a kind of slumber of the soul and remain in this state until the Last Judgement.

Not according to LDS theology. Spirits are very much alive and conscious of their einvironment as we are. In fact, acording to LDS doctrine, spirits are very much like us, in perfect human form, and interact and socialize with each other just as we do. For example, when Jesus appeared to the Brother Jared in the Book of Mormon (before His incarnation), He appeared in a perfect human form, so much so that the Brother Jared expected Him to have flesh and blood like us:

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

When Jesus appeared to His disciples after His resurrection, at first they were frightened, thinking that they had seen a spirit. But He replied to them: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39). So a spirit is in perfect human form; he/she just doesn’t have a physical body like us; but has a spiritual body that in every other respedct looks like us, which enables them to interact with one another and with their (spiritual) environmemt very much the same as we do.

For Catholics, however, Purgatory remains as a possibility of purging oneself from evil before the Last Judgement.

That is what “hell” does in LDS thoelogy. You call it Purgatory, we call it hell. In either case it is a place of punishment or chastisement, until the penalty has been paid and the sinner has been “purged” of his sins.

Mormons seem to be more clear on where the dead will await their resurrections.

Yes; and a lot of other things besides!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

1. A theory can be unscientific if it can be made to fit to any scenario. That means, if you cannot refute evolution because it can be made to fit somehow every time, then it’s not really scientifically valid. This is my weakest point, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

What do you mean by “made to fit to any scenario”? Are you talking about certain people’s tendency to use evolution to explain non-biological phenomena? I agree that such is foolish, but this isn’t the fault of biology. There are lots of crackpots that use a legitimate scientific theory to try to explain something which the theory is not equipped to explain. “Social Darwinism” is not evolutionary biology (it’s not even science), and there’s much of Evolutionary Psychology that I’m skeptical of.

1. The concept of Regulation in organisms. This is when the egg becomes damaged during the creation process of an organism. Take a water flea for example. A normal water flea would use the entire size of the egg to become a full individual. If the egg were ‘strangled’, so to speak, in the middle of the egg, then the organism would still grow up to be a complete individual, albeit only half as large. Even though nothing we know of dictates the movement of the first cells, they can still create an organism in special circumstances. The individual, however, will also just be half as large, but alive and mentally able for the most part. We cannot explain this phenomenon as far as I know.

Again, I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you’re asking here. A clarification may be in order. It seems to me you’re asking why the cell fate of an early ovum in an animal is so plastic as to allow for the maturation of an adult even when half of the ovum’s cells are removed. Though this has little to nothing to do with evolution, we do know that the cell fate of animals is rather indeterminate for a few weeks, and even longer in Deuterostome animals (such as ourselves). This is precisely why we see identical twins arise.

1. Coming back to the refuting of the evolutionary theory. We are not yet able to fully grasp evolution and all it’s principles. Many have suggested that there are ‘laws’ that we have not discovered that determine regulation and everything else. However, this is making the theory irrefutable, and thus an invalid theory.

This is not making the theory irrefutable. There are still means by which evolution can be falsified. We now have algorithms to mathematically p(name removed by moderator)oint the rate and acceleration of natural selection. We have formulas which can p(name removed by moderator)oint which Hardy Weinberg factor is causing the natural selection in the first place. If any of these are violated then that would indeed falsify at least that facet of evolution.

That there is still mystery to other micro-phenomena not yet explained by the current theory doesn’t mean we scrap the current theory. One very important facet of the scientific method is that new, competing theories should be able to explain more pheonomena than the current theory.

1. Sorry, if this one sounds a little mushy. I’m translating from german. Not always easy with hard words.

Anyway, this is the concept of different appendages with the same DNA. For example, the human arm and leg. The DNA contained in these two body parts is identical, as well as the proteins, muscle cells, tissue cells, etc. This has to be done during creation from the zygote, but at the precision in which the cells are capable to do that is a fact science cannot explain. Science, in its atheism, must claim that it is a physiochemical process, but has been unable to do so.

This is absolutely false. Hox genes explain for the appendages and mechanisms of epigenetics (such as methylation) explain the activation of particular segments of DNA at the exclusion of others. We know the effect of such genes and effects by observing how mutations to such affect the phenotype of an individual. I remember as an undergrad studying the xyelid “sawflies”. These creatures have a mutation in the HOCb5 segment. The result: They had legs for antenna!

1. This is another theoretical approach:

Evolutionary science assumes that we will be able to solve:

1. The three-dimensional structure of all proteins

1. To the enzymatic and other properties of proteins.

1. The entire metabolism of an organism.

1. The nature and effect of all organisms and their position information during creation (how the cells know where to form and when)

1. The structure and placement of cells, tissue, and organs and the form of the organism as a whole; finally, the instincts of an animal as well.

Science cannot even begin to make basic assumptions that regulate all of these traits. If we assume, that all points could be explained with the physical laws today, then they would probably be wrong. However, if they stated, that the workings are based on known and unknown workings of nature, then it would be, once again, irrefutable.

I’m assuming the author was a little more specific to these than you were, for as you have it so written we do indeed know the three dimensional design of many proteins, we know how enzymes work, we’re even able to extract human proteins, put them in a bacterium, allow them to reproduce the protein, then reextract them and bottle them as medicine (eg. the hormone insulin in humans).

Even if I were to humor the idea that we know absolutely nothing about the aforementioned things, this is nothing more than a thinly shrouded appeal to collective incredulity. We are indeed laying great inroads to understanding these so merely asserting that “We cannot explain these yet ergo evolution is false” is logically fallacious. This, in my opinion, is the most damaging of fallacies to science for it completely stifles inquiry. “We don’t know, we can’t ever know, so no point in trying”

 

[zerinus]

What do you mean by “made to fit to any scenario”? Are you talking about certain people’s tendency to use evolution to explain non-biological phenomena? I agree that such is foolish, but this isn’t the fault of biology. There are lots of crackpots that use a legitimate scientific theory to try to explain something which the theory is not equipped to explain. “Social Darwinism” is not evolutionary biology (it’s not even science), and there’s much of Evolutionary Psychology that I’m skeptical of.

Again, I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you’re asking here. A clarification may be in order. It seems to me you’re asking why the cell fate of an early ovum in an animal is so plastic as to allow for the maturation of an adult even when half of the ovum’s cells are removed. Though this has little to nothing to do with evolution, we do know that the cell fate of animals is rather indeterminate for a few weeks, and even longer in Deuterostome animals (such as ourselves). This is precisely why we see identical twins arise.

This is not making the theory irrefutable. There are still means by which evolution can be falsified. We now have algorithms to mathematically p(name removed by moderator)oint the rate and acceleration of natural selection. We have formulas which can p(name removed by moderator)oint which Hardy Weinberg factor is causing the natural selection in the first place. If any of these are violated then that would indeed falsify at least that facet of evolution.

That there is still mystery to other micro-phenomena not yet explained by the current theory doesn’t mean we scrap the current theory. One very important facet of the scientific method is that new, competing theories should be able to explain more pheonomena than the current theory.

This is absolutely false. Hox genes explain for the appendages and mechanisms of epigenetics (such as methylation) explain the activation of particular segments of DNA at the exclusion of others. We know the effect of such genes and effects by observing how mutations to such affect the phenotype of an individual. I remember as an undergrad studying the xyelid “sawflies”. These creatures have a mutation in the HOCb5 segment. The result: They had legs for antenna!

I’m assuming the author was a little more specific to these than you were, for as you have it so written we do indeed know the three dimensional design of many proteins, we know how enzymes work, we’re even able to extract human [proteins, put them in a bacterium, allow them to reproduce the protein, then reextract them and bottle them as medicine (eg. the hormone insulin in humans).

Even if I were to humor the idea that we know absolutely nothing about the aforementioned things, this is nothing more than a thinly shrouded appeal to collective incredulity. We are indeed laying great inroads to understanding these so merely asserting that “We cannot explain these yet ergo evolution is false” is logically fallacious. This, in my opinion, is the most damaging of fallacies to science for it completely stifles inquiry. “We don’t know, we can’t ever know, so no point in trying”

I think you have made a mistake. You have posted this on the wrong thread. If you have just posted it, you can still delete it and repost it on the right thread.
[/quote]

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Thanks Z. Wrong thread. What’s worse is I had posted it in the correct thread prior to posting it here. Don’t know how I managed that one.

I think I need a nap.

 

[thecourt]

I continue people in general, whether believing, not, or do not care either way.

This argrument continues, in my view, to increase the deep, contentious divide.

The different Christianities, if you will, make this clear, with division on going and not ending.

The two commandments of loving God and loving my neighbor as myself are the standards I base my daily life, regardless of political, economic-social, or other “separating factors”, that continue, sadly.

 

[Zundrah]

That would be nice.

er…what? You have a problem with getting married?

I guess you sent this post before you got to the part where you were going to be serious with me now.

Well, it would seem that as usual (with all Mormons on this site), you cannot defend your self or deny the claims.
You too often prefer to just pull people into your cult and then unleash the conditions after wards when it is too late for them to back out. You don’t like it when people know your game.

Have a problem with getting married? - If I am forced to just to be a member of a church, yes I guess I would have a problem with getting married! But thankfully I am not Mormon so there is no worries in that department.
Perhaps it is you who needs to be serious now.
I hope you enjoy your life as a God after you leave this earth.

 

[Zundrah]

I continue people in general, whether believing, not, or do not care either way.

This argrument continues, in my view, to increase the deep, contentious divide.

The different Christianities, if you will, make this clear, with division on going and not ending.

The two commandments of loving God and loving my neighbor as myself are the standards I base my daily life, regardless of political, economic-social, or other “separating factors”, that continue, sadly.

Sad?..yes it is sad. I am also sad that I cannot befriend a Mormon with out being nagged about Joseph Smith all the time. In my view, Christ is more important. I guess you Mormons just forget that don’t you?

 

[dianaiad]

Well, it would seem that as usual (with all Mormons on this site), you cannot defend your self or deny the claims.

That’s because, in the main, they don’t deserve response. Your posts verge on troll hood.

You too often prefer to just pull people into your cult and then unleash the conditions after wards when it is too late for them to back out. You don’t like it when people know your game

Have a problem with getting married? - If I am forced to just to be a member of a church, yes I guess I would have a problem with getting married! But thankfully I am not Mormon so there is no worries in that department.

Personally, I almost wish you were right about that marriage thing. I have five children and only one of them is married. If the rule is as you claim, I’d have two more sons-in-law, two daughters-in-law and maybe some grandchildren. Alas, however, I do not.

Come to think of it, if you were correct, my brother would also be married right now instead of taking up space in my guestroom.

Dang. I guess I’ll just go ask the general authorities what they were thinking of; don’t they know that you have to get married if you are going to be a member of the church?

Perhaps it is you who needs to be serious now.

I have no sense of humor. All know this.

I hope you enjoy your life as a God after you leave this earth.

I will never be a God.

 

[dianaiad]

Sad?..yes it is sad. I am also sad that I cannot befriend a Mormon with out being nagged about Joseph Smith all the time. In my view, Christ is more important. I guess you Mormons just forget that don’t you?

Define “befriend.”

 

[Zundrah]

Define “befriend.”

• the exact opposite of what you attempt to do right now!